1 2025:CGHC:58745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5626 of 2021 1 - Nirmal Kumar Pandit S/o R.B. Pandit Aged About 55 Years R/o H. No. B 128 Housing Board Colony, Kota Raipur(C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Energy Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Office, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492002 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through General Manager (Hr), Campus Of Cs Power Companies Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 492013 3 - Superintending Engineer Cum Enquiry Officer Office Of Chief Engineer (Project ), Cspdcl, Campus Of Cs Power Companies Danganiya Raipur (C.G.) 492013 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate For Respondent No. : Mr. Topilal Bareth, PL For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 03.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction quashing the impugned orders dated 31.08.2021 and 01.09.2021 passed by the Respondent No.3. 10.3 Any other order/orders, direction/directions or relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.04 16:58:45 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered prejudice in the departmental inquiry initiated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He submits that the inquiry had progressed substantially, and the statements of witnesses had also been recorded. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, the said inquiry was cancelled and a de novo inquiry was directed to be initiated against the petitioner, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner has already culminated in the imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement. As such, the present writ petition has rendered infructuous. He submits that the petitioner may, if so desire, challenge the punishment imposed upon him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Mr. Tandon has produced the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, which is taken on record. 6. This Court had issued notice to the respondents on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, the matter could not be taken up for hearing. As submitted by Mr. Verma and Mr. Tandon, since the inquiry which is the subject matter of the present writ petition has already concluded and the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to continue with this writ petition or decide it on merits. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the punishment imposed upon him, if he so desires. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari